35 



^.iiQ 



V 



■f«j==^ 



^^=,*fc 



^\ 



# A^^ 



HOWSONS'^ 




United States & Foreign 






'^•f^'^^iXS' 



PATENT &PATENXLAWi^ 

OFFICES, ,45 II 






Established 185 




Principal Offices, T Brancii Offices, \[ 



119 South Fourth St.W 605 Seventh Street, \: 

PHILADELPHIA. Jw 




^^ 



&' J'RbF 



pi^IETor^Si: 



H. HOWSON, 



C. HOWSON, 



Solicitor of Patents. Attorney at Law. i\fl 

Address, HOWSON & SON, Philada. 



ime^ 



s^^^^X 




o- 



HOWSON & SON'S PUBLICATIONS. 



A BEIEF INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLES, EFFECTS, AND PRESENT 
STATE OF THE AMERICAN PATENT SYSTEM. By H. & C. HowsoN. 

Third Edition revised and abridged especially for use at the International 
Patent Congress at Vienna, by th^ request of the Hon. J. M. Thacher, Assistant 
Commissioner of Patents, and Representative of the United States in the said 
Congress. 

II. 

(The same Work in the German Language.) 

iii. 

ANSWERS OF HOWSON & SON TO QUESTIONS OF THE STATE DEPART- 
MENT OF THE UNITED STATES RELATIVE TO PATENTS. 

IV. 

PARTICULARS RELATING TO, AND COST OF PROCURING, FOREIGN 
PATENTS AT HOWSON'S PATENT OFFICES. 



^ .=__ ^- . 

FACTS RELATING TO PATENTS. No. 1. 



HOWSONS' tf-^iv 

U.S. PATENT CIRCULAR, 

EXPLAINING THE 

System of Practice 



AT 



HOWSONS 



U. S. AND Foreign Patent Offices, 

119 SOUTH FOURTH ST., PHILADELPHIA, 

605 SEVENTH ST., WASHINGTON, D. C. 



i 



CONTAINING j.^ i *^ 



BRIEF HIHTS TO INVENTOBS, BASED UFON OFFICIAL 
PrBLICATIONS. 




^'^ 

^ 



^Y 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873, 

By HOWSON & SON, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 



SHERMAN & CO., PRINTERS, 
PHILADELPHIA. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

INTRODUCTION , 5 

SYSTEM OF PRACTICE AT HOWSONS' OFFICES 11 

Fees 11 

Preliminary Examination 14 

Application for Patents 17 

Specifications and Claims 18 

Prosecution of Applications = 20 

Defective and Mismanaged Applications 26 

Reissue op Invalid Patents 27 

Patents for Designs 30 

Caveats 30 

Trade-marks 32 

LEGAL BRANCH OF THE BUSINESS 34 

Agreements, Powers of Attorney, &c 35 

Reports on Validity of Patents 36 

Extensions 36 

CONTESTED CASES. 38 

Opposed Extensions 38 

Interferences 39 

Cases Before the Courts 39 

EUROPEAN PATENTS 41 

CANADA PATENTS 42 

SPECULATING IN PATENTS 42 

FACILITIES FOR TRANSACTING PATENT BUSINESS 43 

The Philadelphia Offices 45 

Clerks 45 

Office Hours 46 

Clients and other Visitors 46 

Drawings 47 

Models 47 

Washington Branch Office 47 

Library 48 

EVIDENCE OF STANDING AND CAPACITY 50 

Certificates 50 

References 52 



INTRODUCTION. 



We publish this new business pamphlet at a time when our 
house has entered upon the twentieth year of its existence, 
so that inventors may receive our remarks as being indorsed 
by the experience of a long and active career in the profession. 

Kot that we intend to inflict upon our readers a mass of 
"advice." Unfortunately for its own best interests, the in- 
ventive community has for many years been favored, through 
the circulars of patent attorneys, with an endless amount and 
variety of so-called " advice." 

Thus mystified and misled as to the principles upon which 
patent property is founded, inventors have been induced to 
spend unprofitably much money, time, and labor. 

What we have to say in the way of advice to them, may be 
thus briefly summed up: "Eender yourselves as familiar as 
you can with the general principles governing patent property 
and with the practice of the Patent Oflice." 

Much has been done within the last few years by the vari- 
ous pubhcations of the Patent Oflace to place within the reach 
of inventors a knowledge of the office practice. 

An attorney, if reliable and competent, so far from objecting 
to, will desire the possession of this knowledge by his clients ; 
for the sound instincts of such a man will tell him that the 



O Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

more familiar they are with patent matters, the better clients 
they will be, and the more appreciative of his services. Prac- 
titioners — and these are not wanting — who would object to 
the Patent Office publications that they try to teach inventors 
too much, at once pay these publications the highest possible 
compliment, and justify the suspicion that they regard their 
business as depending upon the ignorance of their clients. 

When in this circular we find occasion to refer to Patent 
Office practice, or to give a few brief hints to inventors, we 
shall base our remarks upon extracts from Official Documents. 

In addition to the information to be derived by inventors 
from valuable official publications, it is advisable that they 
should become familiar with the principles which underlie 
patent property in this country, so that they may be aware 
of their true position before the public and the courts, as 
patentees. 

During a long practice we found that inventors invariably 
asked the same questions on this subject; hence, two years 
ago, we commenced the preparation of a pamphlet giving 
general information as to the principle, effect, and present 
state of the American patent system, mainly with the view of 
saving the time heretofore consumed in repeatedly answering 
the same questions. The work, however, grew to larger 
dimensions than was originally contemplated, and was pub- 
lished under the title of '' The American Patent System." 

We should not have ventured to allude to this work, had it 
not been for the high official recommendation which it has 
received, as indicated by the following correspondence which 
constitutes the preface of the third abridged edition of the 
work. 



Introduction. 



UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, 

WASHINGTON, D. C, June ISth, 1873. 

Messes. H. & C. HOW SON, 

Pkiladelphia, Pennsylvania, 

Gentlemen: I have been mn^h pleased with your hook entitled 
*' The American Patent System,"^ ^ 

As a concise statement of principles underlying the grant of 
patent protection, and a brief exposition of the American patent 
system, it is valuable. 

In the discharge of my duties as representative of the United 
States in the International Patent Congress, at Vienna, I should 
be glad to use some portions of your treatise. 

Can you, consistently with your personal interests, revise and 
condense your essay, and publish for this purpose a small pam- 
phlet edition in the German language, which is the official lan- 
guage of the Congress f 

If so you will greatly oblige me, and at the same time, as I 
believe, serve the interests of American inventors and patentees. 
Very respectfully yours, 

J, M. THACHEB, 

Assistcmt Commissioner of Patents. 



It will be unnecessary to say that we complied with this 
flattering request with all promptitude, and that we at once 
prepared an abridged edition of the work, both in German 
and English, Mr. Thacher being furnished with copies prior 
to his departure for Vienna. 

We are prepared to furnish gratuitously, to clients and others 
interested in patent matters, copies of this abridged edition of 
'' The American Patent System," believing that its perusal in 



8 Howsons' tr. S. Patent Circular. 

connection with the official pubUcations alluded to will result 
in rendering inventors familiar with their true status before 
the Patent Office as applicants for patents, and before the pub- 
lic and the courts as patentees. 



The object of the present pamphlet is fourfold : 

First. To explain our mode of doing business, and to set 
forth our system of charges, our reasons for that system, and 
the duties we undertake for the charges, so fully and clearly 
that no misunderstanding can occur. 

Second, To inform inventors and others interested in patents 
that the prosecution of litigated cases before the courts and 
the Patent Office is one of the special branches of our pro- 
fession. 

Third, To show that we possess the most ample facilities 
for performing effectually and promptly all the duties we 
undertake, and 

Fourth, To present satisfactory evidence that we have the 
professional experience and ability to perform such duties. 



As to the first object of our pamphlet, we have deemed it 
necessary, in order to fully explain our mode of doing busi- 
ness, to treat the subject under the heads of "Preliminary 
Examinations," "Specifications and Claims," "Prosecution 
of Applications," at considerable length, with the view of 
giving such full reasons for the practice we have adopted, as 
inventors have a right to demand, and it will be found that 
these reasons are invariably based on official documents. 



Introduction. 9 



We also devote some space to the subject of Eeissues, 
Caveats, Design Patents, and Trade-marks, and have given 
expUcit information on the subject of fees. 

With the view of presenting satisfactory proof that we have 
the experience and facilities for doing thoroughly what we 
undertake to do, we have deemed it necessary to give a brief 
description of our two establishments and their surroundings, 
to show that our facilities for transacting both the patent 
soliciting and legal branches of our profession are second to 
none in this country. 

In Section 131 of the Eules and Practice of the Patent Office, 
inventors are told that '^as the value of ])atents depends largely 
upon the careful preparation of the specifications and claims^ the 
assistance of competent counsel will in most cases he of advantage 
to the applicant^ hut the value of their service will he proportioned 
to their skill and honesty,'^'' They are further cautioned that 
" so many persons have entered this prof ession of late years with- 
out experience^ that too much care cannot he exercised in the selec- 
tion of a competent man,'>'> 

It is in no self-laudatory spirit, but simply to give new 
clients that satisfaction which they are thus officially recom- 
mended to require, as to the competency of those whom they 
would employ, that we have published in this pamphlet cer- 
tificates of different Commissioners of patents, and a list of 
manufacturers and inventors (well known and accessible to 
inquirers), for whom we have prosecuted and continue to prose- 
cute patent business, and to whom we refer by permission. 

These we present as evidences of our standing before the 
Patent Office and among patentees. 

Further than this, in speaking of the legal branch of our 
profession, we give a list of some of the contested cases in 
which we have been successfully engaged. Our reasons for 



10 Howson's U. S. Patent Circular. 

this will be apparent to those experienced inventors and pat- 
entees who have learned how fashionable it has become for 
inexperienced practitioners, who never conducted a litigated 
case, to talk glibly of their experience and skill in such cases. 
In conclusion we may refer to the fact that our senior part- 
ner is a practical engineer and machinist, and has been for 
twenty-five years connected with patent matters, for the last 
twenty as a solicitor of patents in this city, while our junior 
is a member of the bar, and has during the past seven years 
been engaged in many patent contests before the Patent Office 
and the Courts. 

H, & C. HOWSOK. ' 



Philadelphia, November 1, 1873. 



SYSTEM OF PRACTICE 



AT 



HowsoNS' Patent Offices 



FEES. 

Inexperienced inventors have been taught, by advertise- 
ments and by circulars scattered over the country, that the 
first question to be asked is, '' Can I obtain a patent f " and the 
second,. ^' What will it cost ?" The facility with which patents 
can be obtained is one of the prevailing boasts in these circu- 
lars, and as to cost some of the advertisers offer their services 
at a value which simply shows how little they are in demand. 

Thanks to the official caution against practitioners of this 
class, inventors are gradually becoming . aware that hosts of 
patents are granted which are dear at any price, and that good 
patents cannot be obtained without the exercise of well-paid 
skill, backed by experience. 

The first question which an inventor should ask himself is, 
not "Can I obtain a patent ? " but " What sort of a patent can 
I obtain P'' (See article on Preliminary Examinations.) The 
question of cost should be based on the answer to this question. 
Having determined that there is a good opportunity of pro- 
curing a sound patent, the inventor must then decide whether 
he will run the risk of having the opportunity thrown away, 
by placing the duty of procuring the patent in the hands of 
those whose system of charges is a certain indication of a 
want of patronage, which is equivalent to a want of experi- 
ence and public confidence. 

The fees charged at these offices, and the services to be ren- 
dered therefor, and mode of payment, were decided upon in 
1860, and have been adhered to since. 



12 



Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 





s 




<p 




^ 




B 









^ 




C3 




'^ 




O) 




-*j 




c 




CJ 




'^ 


. 


<D 


01 


n:^ 


n 


•4-3 


o 


w 




P4 


oT 


S 


1^ 


bi 


1 ^ 


^ 


1". 


H 




EH 


03 d" 
1— 1 


<i 


-g-B 


(I4 




— 


P^ ni 


ai 




iz; 


^ & 





^ ^ 


59 


cS 


^ 







Oi 


» 










ti 


•4^ 


«< 




CD 


^ 


H 


S 


2 


§< 


(t! 


^ 


<j 


bD 


g 


S 

^ 

3 






b 


1 





• r-l 


g 


ti 



w 




b 


-03 


01 


fH 




CO 


^4 




e3 ^ 




c 




•::i fl 




s 2 




f— > O) 




O) «+H 




S-, a» 




Ph "^ 



o "tS 



o 
o 

-4-3 

■£ o ^ 

en 



CO 

bC-^ o 

'O -*-3 r— t 

8 ^. S 

c3 pH o 

© aa 

*^ • ■ 

^ .2 ^ 

^^ iS 



O g3 

> .2 

O 



> «w 

OS O 



r C 



bn 

a 



^^ o 



^ 

s 






<^ 



^ g3 

^ O 

o <^ 

o !>. 



C O 

Ph 

CO (U 

o o 

O) o 

I"! 



o 
p, 

;>. 

;-! 

CO 
CO 

o 

C 

C 



«4-l 

o 

CO 

a 

(D 
Ph 

>^ 

03 

c 

03 
03 

a. 

03 

03 



CO 

o 

Ph C 
X 

o 

b5*-5 
C =3 



Ph c3 

Ph 03 



03 






OS 

p. 



m 

o 



03 ^^ 
O 03 



C3 

03 
c» 
O 

Ph "^ 

o -^e 

CO c3 






03 
03 
Ph 
Ph 
03 

03 



03 

03 I 

"tS Ph 



03 



03 

B 

> 
O 

o 

c 
o 

O 
03 



I* 



P-i a 



2 cj a, 

111 

"-1 ^ 

o o ^ 
2 5 g 









02 



a 
o 

B 

>i 

*CQ 






H 


OJ 


"~\ 


r!^ 





(1( 


A 


Vr 


a 




Oh 








ri 




t: 





bC 


-M 


<v 




fl 





«M 


;3 

J 


•S 
^ 


c£l 





TJ 


0) 





^ 



i 


t 


CQ 
(1) 




1 


^ 


^ 


>■ 




■*^ 




a 


q 


a 


1-^ 






O) 


^ 


e 


g 


? 


-fJ 


OS 


q 


Ph 


7 


>» 


(1) 


® 





-^ 


^ 


^ 



1 






'A 







System of Practice. 



13 



O C Cft 



vw O) O 
^ O «3 

"^ 2 o 

*" ^ o 

"^5 2 

rd ^ O 

o 0? 

if §1 

<S O S 






g o ^ 

Sq «2 C3 
02 



.. -^3 P- Ch 
;-i sS sS 



© 



a 

o 









^ ^ WJ 

>^ p, p. g 

■So" 



© 

Pi 

p^ 

© 
r£3 



© tJD 

to 

O U 

^P^ © 



o 

oT 

P 

.2 
'■+3 

O 

q=l 

o 
© 

p- 

xn 

bX) 

C 

'5 

b£) 
P 

P 



© 
> 

o 

p 



P o 

O P 



^ © 
© »-H 



^ o 

o p 



© 

s 

^ ^ p 

P Q 



c3 S3 
O © 
tP -^ 

© P> 
Ph c3 

bC.S 

n:5 o3 



P 52 

^ a 

PL, .r^ 

p *-• 

.i^-* rP 

CO +3 

c8 P 






IS 



c3 
P^ 



S3 

CO ;_! 

feJD c8 

P P 



O 13 



^ 



S3 

© &H -^ 

pi CO 

<i p p 
2 .2 



cc 



«5 S 



ft ^ 

o ^ 



® 



5 ^ 

<1 :?5 









© tS 

p -. 
© © 



p 
© 

O 

© 

Pp 



a 

o 
© 

© 



^ 2 

73 © 

•C P- 

^ 03 

^ P. 
© . 

n3 rP i^ 
^ ^ cp 

c3 © 

Ph •" -P 

ift el © 

O rP 



Oi 
f-4 

33 



© 

o3 



C4-1 
O 

P 

o 

• I— I 
03 



OQ 
© 
© 
• I— I 

> 

© 

CO 

p . 

03 _co 

- P 
© S 

da ^ 

Pi 



bD © 

© (XJ 



p 
o 

03 
^© 

'Ph 
P. 



CO Ph 
^ P« 

CO o3 



c3 
;-i 



^ bC.S 



" 3 U^ 

P c3 



© 
f-i 

c2 



^ 



p 
© 

p 

u 
© 

O 

bJ3 

P 
•I— I 

13 
p . 

o 
© 



p. 

Ph 
P . 

Is 

P .P 

P.r^ 

s ^ 
2 ^ 

© .,-H 
© ^ 

OS Ph 
O P 

-^ o 

CO © 

P -§ 

|i 

bC © 

C/2 "^ 
^ © 

03 -*^ 

P 53 

•ra ^ 



14 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

There are cases of a very intricate character which cannot 
be classed under the head of ordinary applications to which the 
foregoing list relates. Instances occur in which a series of pat- 
ents are demanded, with a view of protecting some especial 
branch of industry; or the retention of our services in connec- 
tion with a special manufacture or class of articles may be re- 
quired; or our personal services at Washington for several days 
on some special case may be demanded. 

Whenever contingencies arise demanding especial and ex- 
clusive services, an estimate of the probable cost will always 
be given, for it is the rule at these offices never to keep clients 
in the dark as to the expenses which they may have to incur. 

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION. 

Inventors are naturally sanguine and loth to believe that 
their discoveries have been anticipated, hence they are apt to 
seek the protection of the Patent Office too hastily, and to 
incur expenses which prudence might have spared them. 

It would be impossible to estimate the money loss to in- 
ventors from rejected applications, but it must reach a very 
large sum. The loss to applicants for patents cannot be esti- 
mated, however, from the number of rejected applications 
alone. The further question arises as to how many patents 
granted are valueless, either in a mercantile or practical point 
of view, or as regards the strength and scope of the claims. 

A very small amount of novelty and much less of utility in 
an invention will suffice to warrant a patent ; and this must be 
the case, or the Patent Office must degenerate into an arbi- 
trary, inquisitorial institution. The unavoidable consequence 
is, a large number of worthless patents, and of these worthless 
patents many are accepted by the inventors, with the full 
knowledge of their worthlessness, their pride suggesting the 
procuring some sort of a patent after all the pains they have 
taken, but by far the larger number are received in total 
ignorance on the part of the patentees, as to the scope and 
validity of the deed. 

This is for the most part attributable to the contingent fee 
practice so severely denounced in the Keport of 1869, by Com- 



System of Practice. 15 



missioner Fisher, who alludes to these contingent fee men as 
'^ those who care for nothing hut to give their clients something 
called a])atent^ that they may secure their ownfee^ and who have 
in too many instances^ proved a curse; to get rid of their clients 
and trouble^ they have sometimes been content to take less than 
they v:ere entitled to^ while in many cases^ they have with much 
self-laudation presented them wtth shadows when the substance 
was beyond their reac/i." The mischief does not end with the 
simple grant of these shadowy patents. Frequently the pat- 
entees, in total ignorance of the true scope of the deeds incur 
expenses, and neglect their legitimate business, only to have 
all their hopes destroyed by the discovery that the patent is 
subservient to another, or that its claims have no strength 
to support a monopoly. 

It will be seen, therefore, that it is of vital importance for 
an inventor to ascertain in advance of an application, not only 
whether he can obtain a patent, but whether he can procure 
one ivith some substance in it. 

The system adopted by the no patent, no pay men, the con- 
tingent fee men, ^bove referred to, is a temptation to inventors, 
and is in many cases, no doubt, intended to tempt them rashly 
and inconsiderately to apply for patents. It is a sort of lot- 
tery system, the exponents of which say to the inventor. Send 
us the model, pay the government fee and cost of drawings, 
and if we don't get your patent we will charge nothing. 

In the first place the ticket for this lottery is an expensive 
one. There is the government fee of $15, and the cost of the 
model and drawing before the application can be filed. The 
inventor must expend perhaps $30 to $40, sometimes much 
more, before he is in a position to await his chances, and what 
are his chances ? The attorney's fee depends upon the grant 
of a patent, and rather than lose the fee, he is ready, as the 
Commissioner says, to accept less than he is entitled to, or to pro- 
cure the shadow when the substance is beyond his reach. 

It is quite possible, of course, that the attorney may have 
honesty of purpose and strength of mind enough to resist this 
natural temptation, and may so far regard repute as to forego 
the prospective fee rather than secure it by presenting his 
client with a worthless patent. 



16 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

But it is sufficient to condemn the contingent fee system in 
the minds as well of fair-dealing and competent solicitors as 
of thoughtful inventors, that it naturally breeds this tempta- 
tion, that its very theory is to pay the attorney, not for his 
time, services, and labor in properly advising and aiding his 
clients, but only for securing a patent, as though that were 
his sole duty. 

Let the inventor reflect that the true question to be solved 
in his case is not " Can I obtain a patent ?" but " Can I ob- 
tain a substantial patent ?" and he will at once see the fallacy 
and danger of a system of soliciting which persistently brings 
forward the former question to the utter exclusion of the latter. 

It has been our practice, from the establishment of this 
office in 1853, to invite inventors to consult us as soon as they 
have conceived what they suppose to be an invention. We 
do not require a model to illustrate the invention ; a simple 
sketch or even an explanation given verbally, or in writing, 
will in many cases suffice to enable us to understand it. 

In many cases we are enabled to give from memory a refer- 
ence which will show the invention to have been anticipated. 
Our senior partner has been engaged in mechanical and scien- 
tific pursuits for over thirty-five years, and has necessarily 
acquired a fund of information relating to the industrial arts, 
and this information he is ready to draw upon whenever 
he is consulted by an inventor, and to advise the latter with- 
out charge. Scarcely a day elapses without presenting the 
opportunity of advising an inventor not to incur expense in 
developing his invention. 

AVhile we may in many cases be able to pronounce an inven- 
tion to be old, and to communicate our opinion, backed 
by references, without charge, no attorney, whatever his 
experience may have been, can declare at once, and with- 
out investigation, in favor of the novelty of an invention. 
Whenever we have a doubt on this subject we invariably rec- 
ommend a preliminary examination, with the view of deter- 
mining not only whether there is a probability of securing a 
patent, but whether a patent with some substance in it can 
be procured. 



System of Practice. 17 



One of our main objects in establishing a branch office in 
Washington in 1867 was to prosecute effectually this duty of 
making preliminary examinations, which we accomplish by 
an investigation of the patented records of the Patent Office. 
For this duty we charge a fee of five dollars, which sum will 
be deducted from the agency fees in making the application 
for a patent. 

Inventors should distinctly understand what is meant by 
this preliminary examination. It does not mean a thorough 
investigation of the prior state of the art to which the inven- 
tion relates, for this would in many cases involve the labor 
of days, and in some instances, of weeks, in the perusal 
of foreign records, and a fee of five dollars would be totally 
inadequate for such services. The search is made with the 
view of ascertaining approximately whether the alleged inven- 
tion has been the subject of a patent in the United States. 

Of late years the difficulties in the way of making these 
searches have been increased ; models are frequently misplaced, 
and access to the drawings has been recently forbidden, and 
even these are often out of place. It is gratifying to know, 
however, that the printing of copies of drawings of patented 
inventions is being proceeded with, and that eventually better 
facihties will exist for the prosecution of these researches. 

While a preliminary examination therefore must necessarily 
be comparatively superficial, as regards the prior state of the 
art, and does not guarantee a patent, it is, with rare excep- 
tions, the means of procuring reliable information relating to 
prior patents, and of saving much expense in the preparation 
of models, and in fees for making applications, and much loss 
of time, and harassment of mind. 

The exercise of due caution in applying for patents has 
always been characteristic of this establishment, the present 
proportions of which may be attributed in a great measure to 
the strict observance of this rule. 

APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS. 

When it has been determined to apply for a patent we at 
once proceed to prepare the necessary drawings, for which we 

2 



18 Howsons' U, S. Patent Circular. 

have especial facilities, as will be found by referring to another 
portion of the pai^giphlet ; these drawings being made in the 
office by trained draughtsmen under the instructions and 
superintendence of the head of the firm. The model will also 
be made under directions received from this office, if the appli- 
cant has no proper facilities for procuring its manufacture. 

The specifications are invariably prepared or revised by the 
head of the firm, who, in all cases, attends to the framing of 
the claims . It is advisable in ngiost cases for an inventor to 
have a personal interview and consultation with our senior 
partner, preparatory to the preparation of the specification ; 
or when this is not convenient, the correspondence of the 
inventor with the office should be of a very explicit character, 
so that his wishes may be complied with. 

In very intricate cases^ or in those involving legal difficulties 
demanding lengthened consultations and research, the head 
of the firm will be ready to make an appointment for consul- 
tation at his residence in the afternoon or evening, that is 
between four and six in the afternoon, or between eight and 
ten in the evening, hut in no case can such special consultations 
he had without previous appointment. 

Whenever there is special reason for the hasty filing of an 
application, it will be attended to at once, and can in many 
cases be completed within twenty-four hours, providing the 
model be furnished. 

SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS. 

This is a most important subject for the consideration of 
inventors, and should be dwelt upon fully and succinctly in 
the business pamphlet of a patent solicitor. 

In introducing the subject we cannot do better, by way of 
enforcing our views, than by inserting the following section, 
No. 131, of the last edition of the Rules and Practice of the 
Patent Office (July, 1873). 

'^ As the value of patents depends largely upon the careful 
preparation of the specifications and claims^ the assistance of 
competent counsel will in most cases he of advantage to the appli- 
cant^ hut the value of their services will he proportioned to their 



o 

g 

O 

i 

I 

Q 



S 'i?.|SS" 



> I 

h lU 

OS 111 

i O 

S *^ 

» oe 

o o 

<) u. 

H ^ 

§ s 



> Z 




.sTiir^is^? «s.5 






i^ 



" -g 'S -5 E -=> •= 

o e -s - § ^ S 




* » 




System of Practice. 19 



sicill and honesty. So many persons have entered the profession 
of late years without experience that too much care cannot he ex- 
ercised in the selection of a competent man. The office cannot 
assume responsibility for the acts of attorneys^ nor can it assist 
applicants in making a selection,'''^ 

The foregoing official caution to inventors has been de- 
manded by the multitude of defective specifications and worth- 
less claims which find their way to the Patent Office. 

However novel and useful an invention may be, its value in 
a commercial point of view will depend upon the character of 
the patent in which the invention is described and claimed ; 
hence, an inventor's success will depend, as the Commissioner 
says, upon the skill and honesty of the attorney who prepares 
the specification. 

There is but one way of testing the professed ' ' sMll and 
honesty ^^ of a patent solicitor, and that is by demanding from 
him a proof of his experience and success, of his good standing 
before the Patent Office, and of the estimation in which he is 
held by prominent and successful inventors and those largely 
interested in patents ; and the solicitor who cannot, in his cir- 
culars and pamphlets, present satisfactory proofs upon these 
points, must necessarily be looked upon with suspicion. It is 
not only the right of an inventor, but a duty which he owes 
to himself, to demand such proofs ; and it is equally the duty 
of the attorney to have at hand ample evidence to meet the 
demand. 

As a further proof of the care and judgment exercised at 
these offices in the preparation of specifications, we may be 
permitted to refer to the annexed photo-lithograph of a patent, 
the specification and drawing of which were prepared by the 
head of this establishment, and which has been selected by 
the Hon. Commissioner of Patents, for illustration in the last 
edition of the Eules and Practice of the Patent Office, as an 
example for the guidance of attorneys and inventors. The 
style of specification prepared at these offices, and thus offici- 
ally commended, is the result of the most careful consideration 
of the legal requirements of such documents. The object 
aimed at was the abolition of the old rambling, verbose, and 



20 Howsons* U. S. Patent Circular. 

disjointed style of specification which had prevailed, and which, 
easy to write and difficult to understand, was obnoxious to the 
Patent Office and to the courts, and afforded doubtful protec- 
tion to patentees. The brief and concise style of specification 
of which we give the official example, possesses special advan- 
tages to inventors, for its very succinctness requires much 
greater care, forethought, and circumspection, and a more 
thorough knowledge of the invention on which it is brought 
to bear, than the old wandering style, which presented every 
opportunity for the careless weaving together of a lot of 
unmeaning sentences, and for covering up the ignorance of 
incompetent attorneys. 

Since the opening of this establishment, under its present 
head in 1853, its continually increasing prosperity may be at- 
tributed, in great degree, to the careful manner in which the 
preparation of specifications has always been attended to. 

In continuing this course, we shall in all cases adopt the 
above style of specification, with such particular modifications, 
of course, as the different peculiarities of different inventions 
may require. 

PROSECUTION OF APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS. 

We consider it our duty to be very explicit also in our re- 
marks on this important subject. To clearly explain our 
mode of prosecuting applications it will be necessary to com- 
pare it with some of the practices of other attorneys, in doing 
which we do not wish to be understood as arrogating to our- 
selves superior attainments, for we fully recognize the fact 
that there are in the profession many gentlemen of the greatest 
ability, of lengthened experience, and of the highest standing, 
and these gentlemen will, we feel confident, support our views, 
as will also the officers of the Patent Office. 

Much misunderstanding exists as to the mode of doing 
business in the Patent Office. A supposition, for instance, 
prevails to some extent that special privileges and favoritism 
are to be found in the office, and this supposition is fostered 
by a class of agents who would attack the pockets of their 



System of Practice. 21 



clients, under the pretence of exercising special influences, 
enabling them to obtain patents of a better quality and more 
quickly than others can procure them. 

The Commissioner has found it necessary to caution in- 
ventors on this subject in the following language. 

" It will he a safe rule to mistrust those attorneys who boast of 
the possession of special and peculiar facilities in the office 
for procuring patents in shoi^ter time or with more extended 
claims than other s,^"^ 

There must, of course, always be some attorneys with more 
influence than others, but it is influence based on the respect 
which ability and fair dealing with the oflice always command 
and not the crooked influence which is whispered into the 
ears of confiding inventors by designing attorneys, whose 
underhand tricks soon become known in the Patent Office, 
and who sink to the level of suspected practitioners. 

It has been, and continues to be, a common practice with 
solicitors to consider their duties at an end when an applica- 
tion for a patent has been filed, and to consider every step in 
the prosecution of an application as an additional duty which 
demands an additional fee, a practice which we discarded 
many years ago to adopt that of charging what we consider 
an adequate fee in the first instance, and of prosecuting the 
application to the end as a part of the duty for which the fee 
was paid. 

It is important for every applicant for a patent to become 
familiar with the routine of the Patent Office, in order that he 
may form a true estimate of the manner in which his applica- 
tion should be prosecuted with due regard to his own in- 
terests. All we need say on the subject here is, that every 
application for a patent is submitted, in the first instance, 
to the primary examiner in charge of the class to which the 
invention relates ; that he will allow the case and permit 
the patent to issue if the papers are prepared in accordance 
with the rules of the office, and if the claims presented are for 
new inventions ; that he will reject or partially reject, if the 
whole or part of the invention as claimed is not new ; that if 
the applicant insists upon the novelty of his invention he can 



22 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

be reheard by the same primary examiner, either on the origi- 
nal or on amended specification and claims ; that if the ex- 
aminer persists in his adverse judgment, the applicant can, 
on payment of a fee of $10, appeal to the Board of Examiners- 
in-Chief, and thence, if the decision be still adverse, to the 
Commissioner of Patents in person, on payment of an addi- 
tional fee of $20, and thence to the Supreme Court of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia. Appeals may also be made directly from 
the Primary Examiner to the Commissioner without an addi- 
tional fee, on interlocutory questions relating to Patent Office 
practice. 

It is the sworn duty of an examiner to prevent as far as 
lies in his power the issue of a patent for anything which is 
already the property of the public or of a prior patentee ; on 
the other hand, the applicant for a patent is actuated by the 
desire to procure the most comprehensive monopoly, and 
guided by his own feelings cannot always look with patience 
on an examiner's objections ; hence there must always be a 
species of antagonism between applicants for patents and ex- 
aminers. 

But there can be no reason why this antagonism should not 
be of the most amicable character ; there are no officers of the 
Government more accessible, and more ready to listen to ex- 
planations than the examiners of the Patent Office. 

Occasionally we may find an examiner whose main charac- 
teristics are that obstinacy and self-importance which indi- 
cate ignorance, but as a body they are gentlemen well qualified 
for their positions. 

We frequently hear of attacks upon the examiners of the 
Patent Office. The very duties which they have to perform 
lay them open to such attacks ; there is the disappointed in- 
ventor of something old on the one hand, or the attorney 
baulked of a substantial contingent fee on the other hand, by 
the adverse action of an examiner, who has to encounter the 
public censure of both without the opportunity of replying. 
A brief examination of the files of the Patent Office will show 
that nine-tenths of the difficulties which applicants for patents 
meet with are attributable not to the examiners, but to the 



System of Practice. 23 



wretched character of the papers, which it is their duty to 
peruse and criticize. 

Different attorneys adopt different modes of prosecuting and 
of charging for prosecuting applications for patents ; there are 
competent attorneys who perform their duty with admirable 
vigor and good judgment, there are others again who, to use 
the words of Commissioner Fisher, in his official report to 
Congress for 1869, " Are more desirous of obtaining a patent of 
any Mud and by any means than they are of obtaining one which 
shall be of any value to their clients^ who care for nothing but to 
give their clients something called a patent^ that they may secure 
their own fee and to get rid of their clients and of trouble^ are 
content to talce less than they are entitled to,'>'> There are timid 
attorneys again, with the best intentions, but without the nec- 
essary experience or facilities for prosecuting applications, or 
who fear they will incur the displeasure of examiners by re- 
sisting their views ; whereas the attorney who is thoroughly 
familiar with his case, and after the mature consideration of 
all its points, persists in grounds he has taken always com- 
mands the respect of the office, providing he exhibits the 
proper ability and performs his duties with proper courtesy. 

With these prefatory remarks, we will proceed to explain 
our own mode of prosecuting applications for patents before 
the Patent Office, so that chents may be made aware of the 
exact duties we have to perform for the fees originally paid. 

After an application has been filed through these offices, 
the first paper which the applicant will receive will be the 
official acknowledgment of the receipt of the necessary papers 
and fees, he will then know that his case is properly before 
the Patent Office. Much misunderstanding exists as to the 
lapse of time between the filing of an application and official 
action on the same. One inventor may find his case acted on 
in three or four days after the filing of his application, while 
his neighbor may become dissatisfied because he has to wait 
as many weeks for an action. The reason of this is simply 
because the two applications are for inventions appertaining 
to different classes, in charge of different examiners, one of 
whom may, owing to a press of business, be somewhat behind- 
hand with his work. 



24 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

Some accident, as the loss of a paper, misplacing of a model, 
&c., may delay action. It is one of the duties of the super- 
intendent of our branch office in Washington to carefully pro- 
vide against such accidents. 

Should the application be favorably considered, the fact is 
at once communicated to us by telegraph from our Washing- 
ton office, and the information telegraphed to the applicant, 
who is thus made aware of the decision within a few hours 
after it has been rendered. 

In two or three days after this the applicant will receive an 
official announcement of the allowance of his patent, when he 
can pay us the second Grovernment fees at once, so that the 
patent may issue in about three weeks, or the applicant may 
have reason for keeping his allowed case in the secret archives 
of the Patent Office ; as, for instance, when he desires to procure 
foreign patents before his invention is published in this coun- 
try, in which case he has simply to delay the payment of the 
second fees, but this delay must not exceed six months. We 
always advise the payment of the second fees into the Patent 
Office as promptly as possible, so as to prevent the possibility 
of any such obstacles to the issue as the filing of an interfer- 
ing application. 

In many cases an examiner may object to some part of the 
specification ; he may ask a more explicit description of some 
part, or a trifling alteration of the drawings may be required, 
or a slight modification of the claims. It is the practice with 
us to comply promptly with such official requests, providing 
we consider them reasonable, and providing the alterations 
demanded have no tendency to impair the patent when 
granted. 

Our Washington offices enable us to perform these duties 
without delay. In many cases an examiner's objections may 
be removed by a verbal explanation, to make which, the 
Superintendent of our Washington office is always at hand. 

When an application for a patent, however, is rejected on 
reference to a prior patent, or to the publication of a prior 
invention, more or less delay in the prosecution of the case 
must necessarily take place. 



System of Practice. 25 



The rejection of an application on such grounds is a far 
more serious matter to the applicant than inventors have been 
taught to consider it. Let an applicant, in his haste to 
secure a patent of some kind, acquiesce unnecessarily in the 
decision of the office, content himself with a restricted claim, 
and the value of his patent is diminished ; by the very act of 
carelessly admitting the pertinency of the reference he may 
voluntarily place his patent in subordination to a prior patent. 

Careless action at this juncture may cast a taint on a patent 
which will never leave it, the taint consisting of the evidence 
of hasty and unadvised action which appears in the papers on 
file. These papers are essentially a part of the patent, for a 
patentee can hardly expect to negotiate a sale without an 
investigation by the purchaser, or his attorney, of all the 
papers on file, which afibrd a history of the progress of the 
case through the Patent Office. 

Whenever an application filed through these offices is re- 
jected on reference to prior inventions, we consider it our first 
duty to become familiar with these references, which are ob- 
tained from the Patent Office through our branch office, or 
from our library here ; and these references are submitted to 
the head of this firm, who has had twenty-five years experi- 
ence in patent matters, and to the applicant if he desires it. 

The exact bearing of the references is carefully considered, 
and future dealings with the Patent Office decided upon. In 
many cases rejections arise through misapprehension of the 
examiner, whose objections can be removed by the filing of 
proper explanatory papers which can work no injury to the 
patent when granted ; in other instances, the examiner will 
be correct in his opinion, and then it becomes our duty to 
determine, in conjunction with the applicant, if he wishes it, 
what claims should be withdrawn or what amendments made 
to secure to him all that he is entitled to. 

It should be understood that throughout the prosecution of 
applications we forward to the applicant copies of all official 
papers received in his case, so that he may be as well aware 
as we are what his status is before the Patent Office, and what 
his status will be before the public when his patent is granted. 



26 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

Examiners make no pretence to infallibility ; on the contrary, 
no officers of any government are more willing to entertain 
arguments carefully prepared with the view of proving that 
they erred in judgment. 

Two things may look very much alike, and yet be totally 
different in points concerning which an examiner has not so 
good an opportunity of forming a correct opinion, as the ap- 
plicant or his attorney. 

In such cases we always take pains to elucidate the subject 
under discussion. But it must not be forgotten that every 
examiner has not only a right to his opinion, but is paid for it 
by the Government, and that if he persists in rejecting an 
application, his persistency should be treated with respect. 
Whenever we have exhausted our efforts to induce an ex- 
aminer to believe that he may have erred in judgment, and 
we believe our own views to be correct, we recommend an ap- 
peal to the Board of Examiners-in-Chief, which appeal we will 
prosecute in all ordinary cases without any additional fee, 
providing the Government appeal fee of $10 be paid. 

Some very nice points may arise in prosecuting an appli- 
cation for a patent which may demand an appeal to the Com- 
missioner in person or to the Court, but such cases are very 
rare. It is very seldom indeed, that an inventor's rights, 
if properly regarded by his attorney, fail to be obtained by an 
appeal to the Board ; in fact, the most liberal opportunity 
is afforded by the Government for an inventor to secure what 
he is entitled to, and if he fails in his object, he has probably 
no one to blame but himself or his attorney. 

DEFECTIVE AND MISMANAGED APPLICATIONS. 

The prosecution of defective applications filed by, and re- 
jected in the hands of other solicitors, has been, and continues 
to be a prominent feature of our business. 

Instructions to prosecute what may be termed second-hand 
applications have recently become so numerous, that with 
every disposition to act liberally to those who have been the 
victims of bad advice or bad management, we have been com- 
pelled to adopt the following practice in all such cases. 



System of Practice. 27 



With the power of attorney authorizing us to act, we re- 
quire $10 for making a preliminary examination of the papers 
on file, so that we can advise the applicant as to whether there 
is a fair prospect of obtaining a substantial patent. 

When it has been determined to continue the prosecution 
of the application or to file a new one in its place, the same 
fees will be charged as in making an original application ; the 
$10 paid for the preliminary examination being deducted. 
Cases of this class are much more difficult to deal with than 
original applications, the papers being frequently of such a 
defective character that their total abandonment becomes 
necessary, and in many instances the applications have been 
prosecuted with such clumsiness, and with so little regard to 
the applicant's interests, as to increase the difficulties, hence, 
the above rule, from which we may, however, occasionally 
depart, in instances of great hardship to which inventors may 
have been subjected. 

REISSUE OF INVALID PATENTS. 

A liberal provision peculiar to our law is that allowing the 
surrender of a patent, which by reason of a defective specifi- 
cation or insufficient claims is inoperative and invalid, and 
the taking of a new patent upon an amended specification. 

The worst enemies of true inventors are those parasites who 
totally wanting in originality, devote their little brains to de- 
vising schemes for availing themselves of the original thoughts 
of others. The profession of these men is very forcibly ex- 
pressed as that of '' getting around patents. " They have quite 
a keen eye for any weak spots in a patent, and just sufficient 
petty ingenuity to take advantage of them. 

So long as inventors look upon the obtaining of patents as 
a trifling duty, to be performed by any one who professes to 
perform it ; so long as they encourage men willing to procure 
patents on any terms, regardless of their strength and valid- 
ity, so long will these pirates, and the attorneys who are 
sufficiently unscrupulous to aid and encourage them, flour- 
ish. The law relating to the reissue of patents is a merciful 
one for the inventor who has fallen into the hands of careless 



28 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

attorneys, and has obtained the mere shadow of a patent, when 
by the display of proper ability he could have obtained one 
with some substance, for he can remedy his patent by a re- 
issue, not, however, without incurring risks, to which we 
shall presently allude, and which could have been obviated by 
a proper prosecution of the original application. 

But the privilege of reissuing has been the subject of much 
misunderstanding, and until of late years was constantly 
abused. It was the favorite resource of those who wished to 
monopolize some entire field of invention, and with whom a 
reissue meant an expansion of claim to suit circumstances ; a 
means not of securing their own rights, but of undermining 
the rights of others. 

This was practiced to such an extent that reissued patents 
came to be looked upon by the Courts with suspicion and dis- 
favor, and it was at last found necessary to adopt in the law 
and in the rules of the Patent Office, provisions calculated to 
restrain the exercise of this power of reissue. 

These restrictions, while serving the ends of justice, have 
necessarily been of such a kind that they are at times serious 
and vexatious obstacles to the obtaining of reissues for legiti- 
mate purposes. 

It is quite a common thing for attorneys who wish to save 
themselves trouble, or to secure a contingent fee, to advise 
clients who have a little difficulty in obtaining the claims they 
desire, to accept any sort of a claim so as to get a patent, and 
then reissue the latter when it becomes valuable. More 
wretchedly bad advice than this cannot be conceived. What 
can an inventor do with a bad patent ? Its very weakness 
will keep off purchasers, and encourage pirates to invade his 
rights, and file applications for patents for imitations, care- 
fully contrived to evade the terms of the claims, and when the 
applicant goes to the expense of a reissue, his application is 
met by those of new claimants with whom an interference 
may be declared, so that he must pass through a course of most 
vexatious and costly litigation before his rights are secured. 

There are other restrictions and particulars relating to re- 
issues, allusions to which will be found in " Howson's Ameri- 



System of Practice. 29 



can Patent System," under the head of Remedies for Defective 
Patents, page 37. 

The only way for an inventor to avoid the difficulties and 
expense of a reissue, is to take care in making his original 
application to so word the specifications and claims, and to 
so persist in what he considers his rights, in prosecuting 
the application, that his patent will not require a reissue. 
Let him by all means avoid during the prosecution of the ap- 
plication the temptation to accept less than he is entitled to, 
in his impatience to secure a patent. 

The procuring of reissued patents has for many years 
been a specialty at these offices. It is a duty which demands 
much care and circumspection, and is attended with more 
difficulties than ordinary applications for patents. 

This is attributable partly to the wretchedly mutilated 
character of many of the patents which have to be reissued, 
and partly to the extra exertions demanded in prosecuting 
applications for reissues in the Patent Office, for the law has 
been abused to such an extent, that a prejudice not easily re- 
moved exists in the Patent Office against such applications. 

Our charges for applying for reissues are $50 or $60, accord- 
ing to the nature of the case, payment, with the first Govern- 
ment fee ($30), being due prior to forwarding the papers toWash- 
ington. As in applications for patents we prosecute these 
cases, when they are of an ordinary character, through differ- 
ent stages without any extra fee for our services, the applicant, 
in case appeals become necessary, paying the Government fees 
and actual expenses, such as printing, &c., when required. 

Cases of extraordinary difficulty demanding the presence of 
the head of the office for several days at Washington, may 
occur, and in some instances, a series of patents relating to 
one branch of industry may have to be reissued, and much 
research into the prior state of the art may be required before 
the proper proceedings can be determined upon. 

In such cases special arrangements will be made with clients 
as regards cost and mode of payment. 

In by far the greater number of cases, however, the cost of 
reissued patents at these offices, including the Government 
fees, does not exceed 



30 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 



PATENTS FOR DESIGNS. 

It should be understood that patents of this class are en- 
tirely distinct from ordinary patents. The latter relate to 
new machines, devices, manufactures, and compositions of 
matter ; while patents for designs relate to shape, configura- 
tion, and ornamentation. 

Artists, designers, and inventors can procure patents for 
designs, for three and one-half, seven, or fourteen years, at 
their option ; the Grovernment fee for the first being $10, for 
the second, $15, and for the third, $30. 

Ko model is required for patents of this class. The draw- 
ing, however, should be very complete, and the specifications 
full and clear, and prepared with as much care as those of 
ordinary patents. 

Our charges for design patents are $15, or $20, or $25, ac- 
cording to the character of the design, the fee rarely exceeds 
$20 ; and when a number of design patents relating to objects 
of the same generic character, as, for instance, a series of 
fabrics, are required, a deduction will be made from the lowest 
fee above given. 

CAVEATS. 

A caveat is a description (accompanied when practicable, 
with drawings) filed in the secret archives of the Patent Office, 
and setting forth concisely and clearly, some improvement 
upon which the inventor desires time to experiment with a 
view to perfecting it, before applying for letters-patent. A 
caveator is entitled to notice if any application be made for 
letters-patent for a like invention, at any time within a year 
from the date at which his caveat is filed. He is not, how- 
ever, entitled to notice of any pending application which may 
have been filed before the filing of his caveat, nor of any ap- 
plication which may be filed after the expiration of one year 
from the filing of his caveat, unless the latter shall have been 
renewed for another year by the payment of a second caveat 
fee. A caveat may be thus renewed from year to year by the 
annual payment of a caveat fee. 



System of Practice. 31 



Only the caveator, or persons authorized by him, are 
allowed access to, or copies of the caveat papers. 

None but citizens of the United States, or aliens who have 
resided here for one year, and have made oath of their inten- 
tion to become citizens, can file a caveat. 

If while a caveat is in force, another person applies for a 
patent for the same invention, the caveator will be entitled to 
notice to file his application and to go into interference with 
the other applicant, for thepurpose of proving priority of inven- 
tion, and of obtaining the patent if he succeed. He must file 
his application within three months from the day on which 
the notice to him is deposited in the post-office at Washington, 
adding the regular time for the transmission of the same to 
him. The day when the time for filing application expires is 
mentioned in the notice or indorsed thereon. 

This title to notice is the only privilege which a caveat con- 
fers. It does not give any exclusive right in an invention, of 
which the Courts can take cognizance, and therefore does not 
entitle the caveator to sue parties, who may make, use, or sell 
his invention. 

It is a not uncommon mistake to suppose that caveats con- 
fer a temporary protection, in the sense that patents afford 
protection, and misled by this idea, parties have been induced 
to file caveats where it was against their interest to do so, and 
when they should instead have made application for letters- 
patent at once. 

Where an invention is complete, and its practicability suffi- 
ciently assured, the proper step is to apply for letters-patent. 

The expense of a caveat is warranted only when the inven- 
tion is not quite developed, or where its practicability is so 
much a matter of doubt, that further experiment requiring 
some time or publicity, is advisable, or where an inventor, 
being as yet unprepared to apply for a patent, and requiring 
time for preparation, has reason to suspect that unscrupulous 
parties may endeavor to take advantage of the delay to patent 
the invention as their own. 

A caveat need not contain as particular a description of the 
invention as is requisite in the specification of a patent, still 



32 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

the description should be sufficiently precise to enable the 
office to judge whether there is a probable interference, when 
a subsequent application is filed. 

It must not be supposed that any slipshod document is 
sufficient for the purpose of a caveat. 

The cost of filing a caveat through these offices, will be $12, 
$15, or $20, according to the nature of the invention. Pay- 
ment, with Government fee of $10, due prior to filing the papers. 

TRADE-MARKS. 

The Act of July, 1870, provided for a system of registry of 
trade-marks in the Patent Office of the United States, and 
gave to the owners of trade-marks so registered, certain reme- 
dies, legal and equitable, for the unlawful use of the same or 
similar marks by others. The remedies, also, which trade- 
mark owners had before the passage of the act, were saved to 
them. 

The benefit of the act is extended to " persons " or " firms " 
domiciled in the United States, corporations created by the 
authority of the United States, or of any State or Territory 
thereof, and persons, firms, or corporations resident or located 
in any foreign country, which by treaty or convention afford 
similar privileges to citizens of the United States. 

Trade-marks already in use, or such as it is intended to 
adopt and use, may be registered. It must be borne in mind, 
however, that there is no analogy between patents for inven- 
tion and certificates of registry of trade-marks ; that the 
latter are not grants, do not confer any right of property, but 
are simply certificates of a recorded claim to such right. 

The statute which provided this system of registry did not 
undertake to create any new law as to the nature and essen- 
tials of trade-mark property. The basis of that property, 
now, as before the Act, consists in adoption of the mark ap- 
propriated, and by adoption is meant an actual application of 
the mark, in the course of trade, to the class of goods for 
which it has been selected. Origination or invention has 
nothing whatever to do with the matter ; the question of 



System of Practice. 33 



priority in a trade-mark controversy is not who first conceived 
or designed the mark, or first intended to adopt it, but wlio 
first did adopt it, by applying it to the particular class of goods. 
It will be understood, then, that as a certificate of registry is 
7iot a grant, it cannot operate to secure a mark which has not 
been adopted, but which it is merely intended to adopt. Secu- 
rity can rest only upon priority of adoption. 

The Act authorizes the registry of "lawful" trade-marks, 
that is, of marks having those qualities which the law as evi- 
denced injudicial precedents, has recognized as requisite for a 
proper trade-mark. It is not an easy matter, and in the space 
at our disposal would be altogether impossible, to state any 
general rule or rules for determining the " lawfulness " of a 
trade-mark. It may be stated, however, that the name of a 
person, firm, or corporation, cannot aZone, ^. e., unaccompanied 
by a mark sufiicient to distinguish it from the same name 
when used by others, constitute a trade-mark ; nor, as a rule, 
can a name which is strictly descriptive or simply indicative 
of the nature of the article to which it is applied. The mark 
should be arbitrary, with the only purpose of indicating the 
origin or ownership of the goods. 

The subject of trade-marks is one requiring no little knowl- 
edge and experience for its proper treatment, and the docu- 
ments for registration of a mark cannot be too carefully pre- 
pared. 

The benefit of registry extends to the term of 30 years, 
and may be renewed for a further term of 30 years. 

The Government fee for registration is $25. Tor our ser- 
vices in attending to this class of cases, we charge $15. 



Legal Branch of the 
Business. 



Patents always have been, and always must be, subjects 
for legal controversies. The anxiety on the one hand of the 
patentee to sustain a valuable monopoly, and the activity of 
infringers, on the other hand, must always create such a 
clashing of interests, that much of the time of the United States 
courts, and some of the best legal talent in the country, will 
always be demanded for the settlement of disputes relating to 
patents. 

Of the many solicitors of patents, by far the largest propor- 
tion restrict their duties to the making of applications for 
patents, and consider their duties at an end when these are ob- 
tained; others extend their duties to prosecution of interference, 
extension, and appeal cases before the Patent Office, and a few 
undertake the conduct of patent cases before the courts, many 
eminent lawyers being extensively engaged in this duty, and 
declining that of soliciting patents. 

The relationship between these branches of the profession 
should always be of the most intimate character, for the more 
they are separated the worse will it be for inventors. 

While mechanical and scientific knowledge, for instance, are 
indispensable acquirements for those who undertake the prepa- 
ration of specifications, a knowledge of patent law and a famili- 
arity with the interpretations of the courts must be brought 
to bear on the same documents to attain a satisfactory result. 
On the other hand, the man who has nothing but legal acquire- 
ments to bring into play, in the preparation of specifications, is 
quite as likely to work an injury to his clients as the unedu- 
cated mechanic. 



Legal Branch of the Business. 35 

Again, when a patentee meets with the difficulties, to which 
all patentees are liable, the man who procured the patent ought 
to be most familiar with the merits of the case, and in the 
best position to do justice to it, providing he has the necessary 
legal ability. Then again, the transmission of a contested 
case from one professional man to another, although in some 
instances indispensable, always involves increased expense. 

It has been the aim of the founder of this establishment 
from the outset, in 1853, to so organize it that he could be in 
a position to aid in securing the rights of inventors before the 
Courts, and especially to protect such patents as he secured. 

From the first every effort has been made to combine in 
these offices the duties of procuring United States and foreign 
patents, defending patents before the Courts, and prosecuting 
all other patent law business ; and much time has been con- 
sumed, and money expended, in acquiring that experience and 
those facilities by which alone the end aimed at could be ac- 
complished. 

The best proof of the success which has attended these 
efforts, will be the list of contested cases in which we have 
acted as counsel, and which will be given hereafter. 



AGREEMENTS, POWER OF ATTORNEY, ASSIGN- 
MENTS, ETC. 

Ordinary assignments, grants or licenses are so very simple 
and inartificial as to induce the belief in some minds that 
"anything will do " in dealing with patent property. It is a 
curious anomaly in the history of patents that those build- 
ing great expectations on their possession, will be content 
to rest that possession upon wretched scrawls, which would 
not be accepted in connection with any other property. Those 
interested in such matters may be assured that, for security 
in the enjoyment of their rights, they must look well to the 
legal sufficiency of their instruments of title. 

These legal documents are so various in character that it 
would be impossible to give any scale of charges. 



36 Howsons* U. S. Patent Circular. 



REPORTS AS TO THE VALIDITY OP PATENTS. 

Our senior partner has been for many years actively en- 
gaged in this duty, and, with the view of performing it effici- 
ently, has accumulated a valuable library of reference, alluded 
to elsewhere. 

Many investigations of this class, made prior to commenc- 
ing suit, or with the view of meeting charges of infringement, 
demand elaborate research and consume much time, while 
opinions can be arrived at in other cases with comparatively 
little trouble ; hence no specific charges can be here given for 
the performance of such duties. 

It is certain that neither suit for infringment, nor the 
active defence of such suit, should be entered upon without a 
thorough examination of the state of the art to which the in- 
vention relates, and an exhaustive research of all prior patents 
directly or indirectly connected with the subject in dispute. 
This duty is one demanding both practical and theoretical 
experience in the industrial arts, and a familiarity with au- 
thorities treating on different practical and scientific subjects ; 
hence the duty at this establishment mainly devolves upon 
the senior partner. 

EXTENSIONS. 

The duties appertaining to the procuring of extensions are 
of a character demanding exactitude, punctuahty, and experi- 
ence, whether the applications for extensions are opposed or 
not. In ordinary unopposed cases we charge $150, including 
the first Government fee of $50. When the proper evidence 
can be readily collected, and no printing and no special visits 
to Washington are required, we demand no additional fee ; 
the application may, however, meet with such adverse opinions 
of the officers of the Patent Office as to require oral argu- 
ments, or additional papers ; or the testimony may be compli- 
cated and difficult to obtain, and the printing of testimony, 
arguments, &c., may be required, in any of which cases 
additional fees, proportionate to the extent of duties performed, 
will be required. 



Legal Branch of the Business. 37 

As a proof that we possess the necessary experience to at- 
tend to the duties demanded in extension cases, we here give 
a list of important patents for which we have obtained exten- 
sions during the last few years. 

EXTENSIONS OF PATENTS PROCURED. 

W. & M. Stratton, Philadelphia, .... Gas apparatus. 

Christian Sharp, " .... Sharp's breech-loader. 

L. B. Flanders, '* .... Replacing cars. 

J. McCarty, Reading, Scarfing skelps. 

" ** Manufacturing tubes. 

E. Spain, Philadelphia, Churns. 

P. C. LowTHORP, Trenton, Truss frame bridges. 

J. Griffen, Phoenixville, Phoenix beam. 

S. G. Lewis, Philadelphia, Platform scale. 

D. H. Stevens, Conn. Carpenter's rule. 

H. H. Thayer, Boston, Axle box. 

J. A. Woodbury, Boston, . .• Planing machine. 

DissTON & Morse, Philadelphia, Hand-saws. 

S.R.Smith, " Car wheel. 

J. A. Woodbury, Boston, Rotary cutter. 

Hiram Smith, Philadelphia, Hand-saws. 

D. D. Lewis, •* Railroad frog. 

W. E. LocKWOOD, '* Collars and cuffs. 



(( (C 



A. P. WiNSLOW, Cleveland, Car roof. 

G. C. Jennison, Philadelphia, Baker's oven. 

Christian Sharp, " Repeating firearm. 

N. & A. Middleton (Dayis), Philadelphia, . Car spring. 

Joseph Harrison, Jr., • " . Steam boiler. 

J. & G. Fritz, Bethlehem, Rolling mill. 



Contested Cases. 



OPPOSED EXTENSIONS. 

Ko legal controversies demand more prompt and energetic 
action and more elaborate research than those relating to op- 
posed extensions, as the time wherein to procure the necessary 
testimony, and to prepare printed briefs, is short and cannot 
be extended beyond given limits. In many cases patents of 
immense value are sought to be extended, and large sums are 
placed at the disposal of counsel for procuring extensions, 
while equally large sums are at the disposal of counsel engaged 
by manufacturers who have combfhed to resist the extension. 

The struggle in such cases, although a comparatively brief 
one, is always fierce, especially on the side of the opposers. 
Such exhaustive researches into the prior state of the art, such 
a thorough display of expert testimony is demanded, and so 
many intricate duties have to be accomplished, in a short space 
of time, that there are very few practitioners who devote 
themselves to this branch of patent law practice. 

The prosecution of such cases, either on the part of the 
the petitioners or that of remonstrants, necessarily demands 
large expenditures, the amount of which must so vary that an 
approximate estimate to meet all cases would be impossible. 

Having given above a list of extensions we have procured, 
some of them having been opposed, we here give a list of a 
few well-known cases in which we have been successfully en- 
gaged against the grant of extensions. 



Anson Atwood, . 
J. A. Cutting, . 
Chas. Bramwhite, 
J. L. Mason, . . 
S. B. Sexton, 
W. W. Lyman, . 



Patent for Gas-burning stove. 

•' Bromide composition for photography 

" Sealing cans. 

*' Threading screw caps. 

" Illuminating stove. 

*' Fruit can. 



Contested Cases. 39 



INTERFERENCES 

"Are proceedings instituted for the purpose of determining 
the question of priority of invention between two or more 
parties, claiming the same patentable invention." 

An interference will be declared in the following cases : 

First. When two or more parties have applications before 
the office at the same time, and their respective claims con- 
flict in whole or in part. 

Second, When two or more applications are pending at the 
same time, in each of which a like patentable invention is 
shown or described, and claimed in one, though not specifi- 
cally claimed in all of them. 

Third, When an applicant having been rejected upon an 
unexpired patent, claims to have made the invention before 
the patentee. 

Fourth. When an applicant for a reissue embraces in his 
amended specification any new or additional description of his 
invention, or enlarges his claim, or makes a new one, and 
thereby includes therein anything which has been claimed or 
shown in any patent granted subsequent to the date of his 
original application, or in any pending application ; provided, 
there is reason to suppose that such subsequent applicant or 
patentee may be the first inventor. 

The rules regarding the conduct of interference cases, are of 
such a character, and the appeals so numerous, that they can- 
not be prosecuted without much sacrifice of time and money, 
not to mention harassment of mind and neglect of business. 
A timely and candid conference between the contestants, or 
between their counsel, may in many cases obviate the necessity 
of tedious and expensive litigation. 

CASES BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COURTS. 

It would be entirely out of place in a business pamphlet to 
enter upon a lengthy account of proceedings relating to patents 
before the United States courts ; for a brief summary of such 
matter we would refer to the chapter in ''Howson's Ameri- 
can Patent System," entitled ''Eemedies for Infringements." 



40 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

As regards our own practice before the courts, we have 
only to say that our senior partner has for many years been 
engaged in the preparation of cases for trial, and has been 
associated with prominent counsel in many cases of impor- 
tance, while our junior has been especially trained to that 
branch of the profession which relates to contested cases, and 
as a member of the bar has been actively engaged during the 
past seven years as counsel in patent controversies. 

It would be fruitless to attempt to give even approximate 
estimates of the cost of prosecuting or defending suits for in- 
fringement. 

It has been our good fortune to retain as prominent clients 
during a lengthened practice, many of the inventors and 
manufacturers, whose names appear at the conclusion of this 
pamphlet, and we are in the habit of treating such clients 
and others who transact their patent business with us liber- 
ally whenever they require our services in contested cases ; 
we can afford to do this, for the simple reason that familiarity 
with the patent matters of these clients enables us to act on 
their behalf, in legal controversies, without that preparation 
which cases entirely new to us might demand. 



As a proof of our experience in the management of con- 
tested cases generally, we here give a list of several in which 
we have been successfully engaged : 

=* Francis et al i;. Mahn, .... U. S. Court, Pa., For defendant. 

•* V, Mellor et al, ... u .^ u a 

Insull V. Abbott & Noble, ... << u .c u 

=^ Stuart & Peterson V. Shantz & Keely, " " " plaintiff. 

=*Carr^^ Bourne, ...... " " " " 

^ Adamson i>. Dietrich, " *' " " 

* Couch V. Bartholf, Interference, Sewing machines. 

^ Lightfoot t;. Eastman, .... " Currying leather. 

=*Keene 1'. Dixon, " Pulp boiler. 

* Houghton I?. Im lay '' Fruit jar. 

=5<F Mason v. Rowley, " •' 

=* Rowley i>. Mason, " ** 



European Patents. 



41 



* Stuart & Peterson v. Bibb, . . . Interference, 

Fowler v. Cook, 

Brick V. Cameron, 

Behfus V. Chabot, 

Barney v. Philips and Coleman, . . 
Buckingham v. Codman, .... 

France v. Reed, 

Pennock v. Brough, 

Sternberger v. Thalheimer & flirsh, 

^ Hannen v. Zindgraft, 

^ Millinger v. Zindgraft, 

Lobdell & Stewart v. Porter & Jackson, .... 
^ David Eynon Appeal to Commissioner under Rule 
=^S. Bevan's " '' " 

=*F. Tully's '' '♦ " 

^J. L. Mason's *' to Supreme Court, District of 
^S. B. Rowley's " 



Stoves. 
Propeller. 
Gas exhauster. 
Sewingmachines. 
Car seats. 
Tooth plugger. 
Shutter fastener. 
Rolling mill. 
Trade-mark, 
White lead. 
Sheet lead. 
Chilled rolls. 



44. 



Columbia. 



Pamphlets relating to all of the cases marked thus ^ have 
been retained, and can be furnished to clients who have an 
interest in such matters. 



European Patents. 



A pamphlet entitled "Particulars Eelating to and Cost of 
Procuring Foreign Patents," can be obtained at these offices, 
hence it will suffice to give here the cost of patents in England, 
France, and Belgium, the three countries in which more 
patents are granted to American inventors than in any other 
European states. 



Great Britain, from $300 to $340 payable in advance, or 
$120 in advance, balance in three and a half months. 
France, .... $100 to $120 in advance. 
Belgium,. . . . 90 to 110 " 



42 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

The above sums, which are payable in United States cur- 
rency, include both agency and Government fees, and every- 
thing necessary to complete the patent. 

When an invention is of such value as to suggest the pro- 
priety of protecting it abroad, it is advisable to mail the 
papers from this country before the patent has issued here, so 
as to forestall the acts of pirates who are in the habit of 
sending printed copies of valuable patents abroad. 

Since the establishment of these offices twenty years ago, 
we have invariably adhered to the rule of employing none but 
gentlemen of the highest professional standing to represent 
us abroad, preferring to pay the fees which the value of their 
services can command, to running such risks as are fore- 
shadowed in the lower charges of men of lower standing. 

CANADA PATENTS. 

Having completed satisfactory arrangements for securing 
patents in Canada, under the new law of that country, we are 
prepared to procure such patents at a cost of $75, including 
both agency and Government fees. 

SPECULATING IN PATENTS. 

The proprietors of these offices will not engage in the pur 
chase and sale of patents, nor speculate personally in patent 
property ; nor do they permit any of their employes to become 
applicants for, or to become directly or indirectly interested, 
pecuniarily, in patents, or to transact any business relating 
to the same on their own account. 



FACILITIES 



FOR 



TRANSACTING PATENT BUSINESS 



AT 



HowsoNS' Patent Offices 



The management of offices in which the soliciting of Amer- 
ican and foreign patents is combined with the prosecution of 
litigated cases before the courts, must necessarily involve 
multifarious duties, which, owing to the large number of 
patents issued, have of late years become more and more in- 
tricate, hence prudent inventors will always inquire not only 
as to the experience and standing of those who undertake the 
performance of these duties, but will further inquire into the 
facilities, without which they cannot be effectually performed. 

With the view of supplying this information, we devote a 
small portion of this pamphlet to a brief description of our 
establishment and its surroundings, and we may remark that 
from the founding of this house in 1853, to the present time, 
a very large proportion of the profits derived from the busi- 
ness has been devoted to the enhancement of the facilities 
for its proper conduct ; to the training and maintenance of 
efficient assistants : and to the, collection, at great expense, of 
a library of reference, which is believed to be the most com- 
plete private patent library in the country. 



44 



Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 



□ 



PRIVATE 



oV 



i^;^;^ 



GROUND PLAN 

OF 
HOWSONS 

PATENT OFFICES 



! 












MODEL p 
ROOM 

1 




" 1 vol 




D 
J 


OCUMENT 
ROOM 







4'" S' 



OFFICES 



/ 



<>^ 



<C? 



ENTRANCE 
ROOM 



CLERK 



C3 
LiJ =3 

5 i 



00 



o 



D 



CO 



o 



D^Dr 



Facilities for Transacting Patent Business, 



45 




THE PHILADELPHIA OFFICES. 

In 1868 it was found that the offices in For- 
rest Place, then occupied by the senior of this 
firm, were far too small for the proper manage- 
ment of the business, hence it was determined 
to remove to more commodious quarters, and 
at the same time to open a branch office in 
Washington. The new structure, Forrest 
buildings, 119 South Fourth Street, then pro- 
jected by the trustees of the Forrest estate, 
afforded the most favorable opportunity for 
pre-arranging the suit of five large rooms in 
the second story of the right wing of the building. 

The desired arrangement was carried into effect during the 
erection of the building. It will only be necessary to direct 
attention to the annexed ground plan of these offices to show 
how available they are for the general supervision of employes, 
and at the same time for the maintenance of that privacy and 
secrecy which the nature of the business so imperatively de- 
mands. 

It will be seen that, independently of the five rooms in the 
second story occupied by our firm for the usual routine of 
business, two additional rooms in the upper story of the 
building are devoted to the storing of models, printed docu- 
ments, &c. 

CLERKS. 



A peculiar feature of this estabhshment is the invariable 
refusal to employ, in responsible positions, any but those who 
have been trained in the offices from boyhood. Of the eleven 
assistants and clerks attached to the Philadelphia and Wash- 
ington offices, all, including the superintervdent of the latter 
offices and the senior clerk of the principal offices in Philadel- 
phia, have been trained under the supervision of the head of 
the firm. 

It will scarcely be necessary to remark that by this plan 
the most reliable assistants are secured, and that the special 
capacity of different young men for special duties can always 
be determined. 



46 Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 

The clerks of the estabUshment are not permitted, except- 
ing on special occasions, to receive visits at the office on pri- 
vate business of their own, nor are they permitted at any time 
to transact private patent business, on their own account or 
on that of any friends or acquaintances. 

OFFICE HOURS. 

It is the duty of the clerks of the office to be in attendance 
from nine o'clock a.m. to half past five p.m., with an intermis- 
sion of half an hour. 

During these hours one of the two members of the firm will 
be present to attend to clients, excepting in emergencies, 
which demand the absence of both, when the senior clerk will 
be ready to attend to the ordinary routine business of the office. 

Mr. Howson, Senior, has been compelled to restrict his. 
office hours from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., in order that he may have 
reasonable time at his disposal for the preparation, revision,, 
and amendment of specifications, and for other duties the. 
character of which demands privacy; he will, however, be 
ready to meet clients for consultations relating to cases of a 
difficult and intricate character, at his private residence in the 
afternoon or evening, with the understanding that such visits, 
must always be by special appointment. The attendance of 
the senior partner at Washington is frequently demanded, but 
during his absence, which will be always of brief duration,. 
any matters demanding his special personal attention will be 
promptly communicated to him. 

The office hours of Mr. Howson, Junior, are from 10 A.M., 
to 5 P.M. ; his absence, however, during a portion of the day 
is frequently demanded by litigated cases in which his services 
are required; and the necessity of arguing cases before the 
Patent Office and the courts, and of taking testimony at dis- 
tant points, may require an absence of several consecutive 
days, on which occasions Mr. Howson, Senior, will endeavor 
to be in attendance at the office. 

CLIENTS AND OTHER VISITORS. 

There will always be in attendance a clerk ready to answer 
all ordinary questions of clients, relating to the progress of.^ 



Facilities for Transacting Patent Business. 



47 



their cases ; and visitors requiring general information relating 
to patents, will be cheerfully attended to, and can be furnished 
with a copy of any claim or other general information without 
charge, and can examine any of the official publications with 
which the office is plentifully furnished. 

DRAWINGS. 

The drawings made at this establishment have secured 
official commendation, one of the drawings made here having 
been selected as a sample, which is forwarded to inquirers by 
the Patent Office. 

Whenever circumstances demand it, a competent draughts- 
man will be sent to any point required, with the view of copy- 
ing any machine for which an application for a patent is about 

to be made. 

MODELS. 

Recent regulations of the Patent Office demand a model in 
every case. In complying with this request, inventors are apt 
to incur unnecessary expense in making models of a more 
elaborate character than is necessary. We would suggest, 
therefore, that clients who are not familiar with the absolute 
requirements of the office, in respect to models, will explain 
their inventions, and receive such instructions as to making^ 
the model as will insure the saving of expense. When clients 
request it we will furnish models made under our own super- 
vision. 

THE WASHINGTON BRANCH OFFICE. 

This is situated in Seventh Street, directly 
opposite to and but a few doors from the United 
States Patent Office, to the records of which ac- 
cess may be had at any time during official busi- 
ness hours. 

Our Washington office is an essential part of 
the principal offices in this city, and is devoted 
exclusively to the business of the firm, and 
should not therefore be confounded with the 
so-called branch offices which are so promi- 
nently advertised, but which are in reality 
offices for transacting the Washington business of numbers of 




48 



Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 



agents in different parts of the country. All business intrusted 
to us remains under our own control, from first to last, hence 
that indispensable secrecy is maintained, which cannot be relied 
upon where business is transferred to irresponsible practition- 
ers at Washington, who have their own clients to look to, and 
have to attend to the clients of other agents. The superinten- 
dent of our Washington office is a gentleman who has been 
connected with this establishment for many years, and who is 
thoroughly familiar with the inner workings of the Patent 
Office. Inventors visiting Washington can have their appli- 
cations prepared at the branch office, should they desire it, and 
can have every attention paid to their interests there. 

LIBRARY. 

A library, believed to be the most extensive private patent 
library of reference in the country, is an especial feature of 
this establishment. 




It consists of over 2500 volumes, the books being such as 
to determine the history and progress of the industrial arts, 
and give all necessary information relating to inventions, 
patents, &c. This library has been collected with the view of 



Facilties for Transacting Patent Business. 49 

conducting the many researches we are called upon to prose- 
cute, to aid us in contested cases, and to give ready advice to 
inventors. The bulk of the library is at the residence of our 
senior partner, and is contained in a room especially built for 
its reception; but any of the books will, at the request of clients, 
be brought to the office for perusal. 

In no case, however, will clients or others be permitted to 
take away the books. The necessity of adopting this strin- 
gent rule will be apparent, for the books being works of refer- 
ence, may be required at any time, and moreover it is next to 
impossible to replace, in case of loss, volumes of valuable 
serials. 

The books will of course be at the service of any counsel 
with whom we may be associated in contested cases. 



50 Howsons' tJ. S. Patent Circular. 



CERTIFICATES. 



Burlington, Iowa, Oct. 2d, 1857. 

Dear Sir : I take this occasion to state to you, that for several 
years past I have been acquainted with the manner in which you 
have conducted your business as a Patent Solicitor. This has al- 
ways been highly creditable to yourself and satisfactory to the 
Patent Office. You understood your cases well, and presented 
them in that intelligible form which generally insured success. I 
forward this certificate, hoping that it may be serviceable to you 
in continuing to find that employment in your profession, to which 
your intelligence, industry, and courteous bearing so justly entitle 
you. 

Tours, very truly, 

Charles Mason, 
Henry Howson, Esq. Late Commissioner of Patents. 



National Association of Wool Manufacturers, 

55 Summer St., Boston, Mass., Oct. 6tli, 1865. 

My Dear Sir : It gives me great pleasure to give my testi- 
mony as to the manner in which you have conducted your busi- 
ness as a Solicitor of Patents, during the four years that I was 
Chief Clerk and Executive Officer of the U. S. Patent Office, and 
for a considerable period Acting Commissioner. 

During that time your business at the Patent Office was sur- 
passed in extent by but one firm in New York. The papers pre- 
sented by you, specifications, drawings, correspondence, &c., were 
invariably models of neatness, accuracy, and legal precision. 
They were frequently pointed out to younger solicitors as among 
the best examples and precedents for practice in the office. Your 
intercourse with the office was so conducted that all the rights of 
your clients were secured without personal controversy. With 



Certificates. 51 



the best opportunities for judging, I do not hesitate to say that 
your thorough knowledge of mechanics and patent law places you 
in the front rank of Solicitors of Patents in the United States. 

Very truly yours, 

John L. Hayes, 

Late Chief Clerk and Executive Officer U. S. Patent Office. 
H. HowsoN, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa. 



Washington, D. C, Nov. 20th, 1865. 
I fully and cheerfully indorse the statement made by Mr. Hayes 
in the above letter, and commend Mr. Howson to the patronage of 
the inventors of the country. 

D. P. HOLLOVTAY, 

Late Commissioner of Patents. 



Cincinnati, Nov. 16th 1871. 
GrENTLEMEN" : I take great pleasure in testifying to the ability 
and promptness with which you conducted your business before 
the Patent Office while I was Commissioner. Your cases were 
thoroughly, accurately, and neatly prepared, well presented, and 
strongly urged. I wish you every success in your business. 

Yery truly yours, 

S. S. PiSHER. 
Messrs. H. Howson & Son, Philadelphia, Pa. 



52 



Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 



REFERENCES. 



Furman Sheppard, Esq., 
Theodore Cuyler, Esq., . 
Hon. F. C. Brewster, . 
Hon. J. W. Forney, . . 
Prof. R. E. Rogers, . . 
Prof. J, C. Cresson, . . 
Prof. C. M. Cresson, . . 
Prof. H. W. Adams, . 
Wm. W. W. Wood, Esq., 
S. Archibald, Esq., . . 

F. C. Lowthorp, Esq., . 
J. F. Ward, Esq., . . 
J. C. T. Trautwine, Esq., 
R. S. Van Rensselaer, Esq. 
A. Bonzano, Esq., . . 
J. Griffen, Esq., . . . 
Joseph Harrison, Jr., Esq. 
Wm. Adamson, Esq., . 
Henry Disston, Esq., 
Thomas Dolan, Esq., 
Martin Landenberger, Esq. 
Conyers Button, Esq., . 
Charles Spencer, Esq., . 
S. J. Reeves, Esq., . . 
Jas. Dougherty, Esq., late 
W. E. &E. D. Lockwood, 
J. Mc Arthur, Esq., . . 

T. Morris Perot, Esq., . 
Wm. Wharton, Jr., Esq., 
J. E. Wootten, Esq., . 
Henry Wood, Esq., . . 

G. G. Lobdell, Esq., . 
Jas. Millholland, , . . 
Jas. A. Millholland, . . 



Attorney-at-law, 

a 
( ( 

The "Press," 



Philadelphia. 



Eng. -in-Chief U. S. Navy, 
late Eng. -in-Chief U. S.N. , 
Civil Engineer, . 



G-lue, &c., .... 
Keystone Saw Works, 
Woollen Goods, . . 



Phoenix Iron Co., . . 
of Bement & Dougherty, 
Paper Collars, . . . 
Architect, .... 

Drugs, 

Switches, 

Gen. Supt. Reading R. R, 
Sup. Media R. R., . . 
Car Wheels, .... 



Washington, D. C. 
Chester, Pa. 
Trenton, N. J. 
Jersey City, N. J. 
Philadelphia. 
Bordentown, N. J. 
Phoenixville, Pa. 

Philadelphia. 



GermantowD, Pa. 
Philadelphia. 



Reading. 

Wilmington, De 
Reading, Pa. 
Mt. Savage, Md, 



References. 



53 



,1 



W. C. Allison, . . 

J. V. Merrick, Esq., 

Wm. H. Merrick, Esq 

B. H. Bartol, Esq., ...... 

Warden, Frew & Co. , . . Shippers, 

Barker Bros., Brokers, 

J. Rice, Esq., Builder, 

Abram Hart, Esq., 



Car and Tube Works, . 
late of Merrick & Sons, 



Philadelphia. 



Stoves and Hollow-ware, 



Stuart & Peterson, . . 

Chas. Noble & Co., . . 

Isaac A. Sheppard & Co., 

F. Lawrence, Esq., . . 

B. C. Bibb & Co., . . 

Philipsburg Stove Works, 

J. M. Thatcher, Esq., . 

E. C. Pratt, & Co., . . 

Thackara, Buck & Co., . 

Stratton & Bro., .... " 

The Union Paper Collar Co., 

The Baldwin Locomotive Works, . . . . 
a. W. Carr & Co., . . . Umbrella Frames 
Seyfert, McManus & Co., . Iron Works, . . 
Painter & Co., .... Stoves, . . 

Clarke, Reeves & Co., . . Bridge Builders, 
Bement & Son., .... Industrial Works 



Am. Stove & Hoi. Ware Co 
Stove Works, . . . 

Thatcher Heating Co., 

Importers, 

Gas Fixtures 



Phila. and Bait. 
, Philadelphia. 
. Baltimore. 
. Philipsburg, N. J. 
. New York. 

. Philadelphia. 

u 

. New York. 
. Philadelphia. 

. Reading, Pa. 

a 

. Phila. & Phoenixv. 
. Philadelphia. 



James Moore, Esq. . . 

McKeone & Van Haagen, 

Ferris & Miles, . . . 

Washington Jones, Esq., 

Baugh & Sons, 

Hugh Burgess, Esq., 

Martin Nixon, Esq., 

Robert Wood, Esq., . . 

J. H. Cooper, Esq., . . 

The Phoenix Plate Co., . 

Kilburn & Gates, . . 

Hale, Kilburn & Co., . 

McCallum, Crease & Sloan, Carpets, . 

Hunter & Kerr, .... " 

Bromley Bros., .... " 

Frishmuth, Bro. & Co., . Tobacco, . 

Jaoob Ridgway, Esq., . . Street Cars 

Andrew Rankin, Esq., . . Locks, . . 



Bush Hill Iron Works, . 

Soaps, 

Engineers and Machinists, 
L P. Morris &Co., . . 

Fertilizers, 

Wood Pulp Works, 
Paper Manufacturer, . . 
Ornamental Iron Works, . 
People's Works, . . . 



. Furniture, 
. Frames, . 



Royer's Ford, Pa 

Manayunk. 

Philadelphia. 

Worcester, Mass. 
Philadelphia. 



54 



Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 



D. K. Miller, Esq., . . . Miller Lock Co., 
C. A. Miller, Esq., . . . Hardware, . . 
J. B. Shannon, Esq., . . '' . . 

Cooper, Jones & Cadbury, . Brass Works, 
B. E. Lehman, Esq., . . '* 

Robert Ross, Esq., ... " . . 



John "West, Esq., 



Engineer, &c. 



John Fritz, Esq. , . ... Iron Works, 



Engineer, &c., 
Cordage, . . 
Stoves, . . . 
Engineer, . . 
Water Colors, 
Umbrellas, . 



Manufacturing Chemists, 



Iron Works, 



J. C. Schlough, Esq., . 
J. Rinek, Esq., . . . 
J. Q. C. Searle, Esq., . 
J. L. Pott, Esq., . . . 
C. H. Savery, Esq., . . 
Wright, Bro. & Co., . 
W. A. Drown & Co., . 
Hirsch & Co., .... 
Mellor & Rittenhouse, . 
H. Bower, Esq., . . . 
C. F. A. Simonin, Esq., 
J. L. Pennock, Esq., 

The Wright Steam Engine Works 

Gen. Pleasanton, 

Horace Everett, Esq., . . Can Manufacturer, 
Furbush & Son., .... Woollen Machinery, . 
The American Button-Hole Sewing Machine Co., . 
N. & A. Middleton, Jr., . Car Springs, . . . . 
W. & H. Rowland, . . . Spring Manufacturers, 
Alan Wood & Co., . . . Iron Works, . . . . 
C. Sharps, Esq., .... Sharps' Firearms, . . 
S. B. Rowley, Esq., . . . Glass Works, . . . 
Horstmann & Co., . . . Milita'ry Goods, &c., . 
Chas. T. Parry, Esq., . . Locomotives, . . . 

Lucas & Co., Paints, 

Mason & Co. , Blacking , 

The American Dredging Co., , 

The Enterprise Man. Co., . Hardware, ... 
Harbster Bros., .... " ... 
Seltzer & Fink, 



Philadelphia. 



Bethlehem, Pa. 



Easton, Pa. 

Cincinnati. 
Pottsville, Pa. 
Philadelphia. 



Coatesville, Pa. 
Newburgh, N. Y. 
Philadelphia. 

Camden, N. J. 
Philadelphia. 



Conshohocken, Pa. 
Philadelphia. 



A. K. Hay, Esq., . . 

Whitney Bros 

The Scovill Man. Co., . 
Jas. A. Woodbury, Esq., 
Geo. Buntin, Esq., . . 



Glass, 



Photographic Goods, 
Car Wheels, . . . 
Iron Car-seats, . . 



Reading, Pa. 

Winslow, N. J. 
Glassboro', N. J. 
New York. 
Boston, Mass. 



References. 



55 



. Farrell Foundry Co., . 
. Fowler Propeller Co., . 
. Colts' Arms Co., . . 
. Gas Apparatus, . . . 
. Gas Works Contractor, 
. Cornelius & Sons, . . 
. Hats, ...... 



Franklin Farrell, Esq., . 
F. G. Fowler, Esq., . . 
C. B. Richards, Esq., . 
H. H. Wainwright, Esq., 
S. R. Brick, Esq., C. E., 
W. S. Bate, Esq., . . 
W. F, Warburton, Esq., 

E. Morris, Esq., . . . 
Sleeper, Wells & Aldrich, 
W. H. Grove, Esq., . . 
John Lawrence, Esq., . 
Geo. Rehfus, Esq., . . 
Cofl&n & Altemus, 
A. G. Buzby, Esq., . . 
Chas. Lippincott & Son, 
Swift, Courtney & Co., . 

Manhattan Packing Co., 

Lawton Granular Moving Co., . . . . 
Mills Shoe Manufacturing Co., . . . . 
T. Ellwood Zell, Esq., . . Publisher, . 
Murphy's Sons, .... Stationers, &c 
Sherman & Co., .... Printers, . . 

F. A. Wenderoth, Esq., 



Canned Goods, . 
Show Cases, . . 
Nail Machines, . 
Sewing Machines, 
Dry Goods, . . 



Ansonia, Conn. 
Connecticut. 
Hartford, Conn. 
Chicago. 
Philadelphia. 



Burlington, N. J. 
Philadelphia. 



. Soda-water Apparatus, 
. Matches, .... . 



Wilmington, Del. 
New York. 

e( 

( i 

Philadelphia. 



McCalla & Stavely, . . 
Edward L. Wilson, Esq. 
J. L. Ringwalt, Esq., 
Thos. Moran, Esq., 

The Evansville Furniture Co., 

Captain Cone, Steamer John A. Warner, 

Joshua Comly, Esq., 



Artist and Photographer, 
Printers, ...... 

Ed. Phila. Photographer, 
Ed. Public Record, . . 
Artist, 



Dialogue & Wood, . . . 
James Molyneux, Esq., 
Morgan & Orr, . . . . 
Stokes & Parrish, . . 
Van Haagen & Co., . 
Geo. C. Howard, Esq., . 
L. B. Flanders, Esq., . , 
P. & G. M. Mills, . . . 
H. W. Butterworth & Son, 
Jas. Eccles, Esq., . . 
Mellor & Oram, . . . . 
Jas. Watson, Esq., . . 
G. L. Kitson, Esq., . . 



Engineers, &c., . . . . 

Engineer, 

Engineers and Machinists, 



Newark, N. J. 
Evansville, Ind. 
Philadelphia. 

Camden, N. J. 

Bordentown, N. J. 

Philadelphia. 
<( 

(i 

(( 

(( 



56 



Howsons' U. S. Patent Circular. 



Wilbraham Bros., . . . 
The American Machine Co. , 
The American Photo-Relief 
Isaac A. Gregg, Esq., . . 
H. Lauth, Esq., .... 
Mitchell & Tate, .... 

B. D. Vanhorn, Esq,, . . 
G. Monroe, Esq., .... 
Harris, Griffen & Co., . . 
J. Gravenstine, Esq., . . 
The Eagle Packing Co., 

R. E. Dietz, Esq., . . . 
D. R. Dietrich, Esq., . . 
Messrs. Herzberg, . . . 
J. E. Hover, Esq., . . . 

C. I. Dupont, Esq., . . . 
W. T. Griffenberg, Esq., . 
A. 0. Denio, Esq., . . . 
Green, Piatt & Co., . . . 
Wm. Mc Arthur, Esq., . . 
T. R. Evans, Esq., . . . 
Harvey & Ford, .... 
David Eynon, Esq., . . . 
H. G. Armstrong, Esq., 
The Phosphor-Bronze Co., . 
Hussey, Wells & Co., . 

0. T. Welch, Esq., . . . 
Smith & Brown, .... 
L. Scharf, Esq., .... 
J. Morrison, Esq., . . . 
Mills & Smith, .... 
H. W. Harper, Esq., . . 
J. K. Caldwell, Esq., . . 
J. D. Clift, Esq., . . . . 
David Brooke, Esq., . . 
Steele & Condict, .... 



Engineers and Machinists, Philadelphia. 



Co., 

Brick Machines, 
Sewing Machine Stands, 
Coverlet Makers, . . 

Brushes, 

Lasts, 



Gas Meters, . 
Refrigerators, 



Sheet Metal Goods, 
Rubber Goods, . . 
Jewellers, . . . 
Ink, &c., . . . . 



Fire Extinguishers, 
Carpet Machines, . . 
Shoe and Boot Patent, 

Turners, 

Spike Works, . . . 
Paper Bag Machines, . 



Mayor, . . . 
Patterns, . . . 
Fire Clay Works, 
Furnaces, 
Bridges, . . . 
Slates, .... 
Brick Machines, 
Packing, . 
Insulators, 
Engineers, &c., . 



New York. 
Philadelphia. 



Wilmington, Del. 



Philadelphia. 



St. Louis, Mo. 
Trenton, N. J. 
Pittsburg, Pa. 

Topeka, Kansas. 
Philadelphia. 
Spring City, Pa. 
Alleghany City, Pa 
Topeka, Kansas. 
Berlinville, Pa. 
Philadelphia. 
Mystic Bridge, Ct. 
Philadelphia. 
Jersey City. 



PAMPHLETS EELATING TO LITIGATED OASES. 



Inventors and others interested in contests relating to Fatents can 
obtain^ on application^ pamphlets relating to the follovnng cases suc- 
cessfully conducted at these Offices : 

APPEALS TO COMMISSIONER IN PERSON. i^ 

Patentability of Combinations of Machinery, Eynon's Appeal. 

Specifications and Claims, Bevan's Appeal. '^ 

Tully's Appeal. 

INTERFERENCES. 

Fire-place Stoves, Stuart & Peterson v. Bibb. 

Machine for Making Sheet Lead, Hannen v. Zindgraft. 

" " '' Millinger V. Zindgraft. 

Gas Exhausting Machine, , Brick v. Cameron. 

Sewing Machine, Couch v. Bartholf. 

Design for Fruit Jar, Rowley v. Houghton. 

Pulp Boiler, Keene v. Dixon. 



EXTENSIONS OBTAINED. 



Car Spring, N. & A. Middleton. 

Beams and Girders, Griffin (Phoenix Iron Co.) 

Paper Collars, Lockwood, (three extensions). 

EXTENSIONS SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSED. 

Photography, Cutting's Patent. i^<?* 

Illuminated Stoves, Sexton's Patent. vv^^rl^'. 

Fruit Jars, Lyman's Patent." 

Sealing Cans, Bramwhite's Patent. 

CASES SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED BEFORE U. S. COURTS. 

Printers' Rollers,. Francis & Loutrcl v. Miller & Rittenhouse. 

" " -. Same V. Mahn. 

Tanning Leather, Adamson v. Dietrich. 

Tempering Steel Ribs, Carr v. Bowen and others. 

Stove Shields, Stuart & Peterson v. Shantz & Keeley. 

Threading Screw Caps, Mason v. Rowley, Supreme Court, D. C. 

Fruit Jar.......... Rowley v. Mason, Supreme Court, D. C. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



i< 

"dig 973 320 B 




